If that is so, then why does St. Paul say that death reigned in those who had not sinned?

He doesn't.

What he does say is death reigned over them who had not sinned in the same way as Adam. The question then is i what way was Adam's sin different from the sins of those who followed util the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinia?

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

So death (θανατος: Thanatos) was over those who overstepped (παραβασεως: parabaseos) in the image (ομοιωματι: omoiomati) of Adam. The word ομοιωματι is the same word used earlier in the epistle:

Quote from: Romans 1:22-23

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image (ομοιωματι) in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

It refers to an idol, not a way of doing things. So there are people from Adam to Moses who did not make themselves in the image of Adam--yet they were still subject to death.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. ~I John 1:7-10

ytterblumanalyst, what are you attempting to say?

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

So death (θανατος: Thanatos) was over those who overstepped (παραβασεως: parabaseos) in the image (ομοιωματι: omoiomati) of Adam. The word ομοιωματι is the same word used earlier in the epistle:It refers to an idol, not a way of doing things. So there are people from Adam to Moses who did not make themselves in the image of Adam--yet they were still subject to death.

Noting the highlighted portion above.

The point is not that there were those without sin & who were different from Adam by nature (as if to say that unlike him these did not sin). Rather, these sinned, but not in the same manner or under the same circumstances as Adam.

Why did they sin? Because they were like (in the image of) Adam their father.

How was their sins different? In the context of Paul's argument, there was no express law given or recorded for mankind after leaving the Garden of Eden. When in Eden you find the command "do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Then, not until Moses received the tablets of the law (the 10 Commandments) written by God at Sinai was such express commandments given again. So, in the sense that "sin is a transgression" or violation "of the law" [1 John 3:4] -- sin could not be imputed to those between Adam and Moses.

However, in the sense that "all unrighteousness is sin [1 John 5:17]" (and thus antithetical to the very nature of God) Adam's race continued in sin unabatedly, despite no legal code or law being given them. That is Paul's point essentially. We may conclude then that sins is still sin whether there is a law that says so or not. The law was given to expose the exceeding sinfulness of what was already by it's very nature sin (and offensive to a perfectly holy God).

We can confirm this (that those between Adam and the law sinned) because the very reason for God sending the deluge, sparing only the family of Noah, was the increased wickedness of mankind. Also, we have Cain being warned of God about his impure motives and jealousy towards Abel ("sin is at the door") prior to actually murdering (aka sin) his brother.

Inherent or self-attained righteousness is not in any man born of Adam. The law was given as Sinai to expressly show us that. In that sense (outside of the reconciling work of Christ by grace) none are righteous.

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

The point is not that there were those without sin & who were different from Adam by nature (as if to say that unlike him these did not sin). Rather, these sinned, but not in the same manner or under the same circumstances as Adam.

Why did they sin? Because they were like (in the image of) Adam their father.

How was their sins different? In the context of Paul's argument, there was no express law given or recorded for mankind after leaving the Garden of Eden. When in Eden you find the command "do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Then, not until Moses received the tablets of the law (the 10 Commandments) written by God at Sinai was such express commandments given again. So, in the sense that "sin is a transgression" or violation "of the law" [1 John 3:4] -- sin could not be imputed to those between Adam and Moses.

However, in the sense that "all unrighteousness is sin [1 John 5:17]" (and thus antithetical to the very nature of God) Adam's race continued in sin unabatedly, despite no legal code or law being given them. That is Paul's point essentially. We may conclude then that sins is still sin whether there is a law that says so or not. The law was given to expose the exceeding sinfulness of what was already by it's very nature sin (and offensive to a perfectly holy God).

We can confirm this (that those between Adam and the law sinned) because the very reason for God sending the deluge, sparing only the family of Noah, was the increased wickedness of mankind. Also, we have Cain being warned of God about his impure motives and jealousy towards Abel ("sin is at the door") prior to actually murdering (aka sin) his brother.

Inherent or self-attained righteousness is not in any man born of Adam. The law was given as Sinai to expressly show us that. In that sense (outside of the reconciling work of Christ by grace) none are righteous.

But no one is different from Adam by nature. The Theotokos (Blessed Virgin Mary) is no different than we are because she was in our same human nature. The only difference is that she did not commit any personal sin. Also, I would add that Adam's sin is not imputed to anyone to begin with. The only inheritance of the Original Sin is its consequences.

But no one is different from Adam by nature. The Theotokos (Blessed Virgin Mary) is no different than we are because she was in our same human nature. The only difference is that she did not commit any personal sin. Also, I would add that Adam's sin is not imputed to anyone to begin with. The only inheritance of the Original Sin is its consequences.

Then Christ did not need to be born of a virgin -- it did not matter if he was of Adam or not. he only had to be individually sinless.

Furthermore then no one needs the sacrifice of Christ if they have not personally committed sin. It is sin that causes death, both physical and spiritual. It is sin that breaks fellowship with God. There is no fellowship with God (which is eternal life) to be restored or reconciled if all are not in sin and/or have not personally sinned.

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

Then Christ did not need to be born of a virgin -- it did not matter if he was of Adam or not. he only had to be individually sinless.

Furthermore then no one needs the sacrifice of Christ if they have not personally committed sin. It is sin that causes death, both physical and spiritual. It is sin that breaks fellowship with God. There is no fellowship with God (which is eternal life) to be restored or reconciled if all are not in sin and/or have not personally sinned.

No. Why wouldn't He need to be born of a virgin? The fact is that Christ restores the relationship that man had with God before the Fall, or atleast the potential. Christ needed to assume the same flesh as ours to heal our sickness. His redemption was just as necessary for the Virgin Mary as it is for us. She was created in the same human nature (i.e. fallen) and needed to have Christ redeem her. Her sinlessness was part of her relationship to God and a testament to her faith. The state of death that each person is born into causes sin, not the other way around. This death, as you say of sin, is physical, but also spiritual. Sin, in Eastern theology, is a sickness, but death is the root of it...Now you are most certainly confused

The state of death that each person is born into causes sin, not the other way around. This death, as you say of sin, is physical, but also spiritual. Sin, in Eastern theology, is a sickness, but death is the root of it...

I would respond with the following Scriptures:

Ezekiel 18:20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. ...

Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

James 1:15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

In each case sin precedes and is the source of death.

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

Then Christ did not need to be born of a virgin -- it did not matter if he was of Adam or not. he only had to be individually sinless.

Furthermore then no one needs the sacrifice of Christ if they have not personally committed sin. It is sin that causes death, both physical and spiritual. It is sin that breaks fellowship with God. There is no fellowship with God (which is eternal life) to be restored or reconciled if all are not in sin and/or have not personally sinned.

While many things you say is correct, you have a faulty understanding of Ancestral Sin (unless im misunderstading you). When Adam transgressed and fell he took with him the entire creation. Man being the pinnacle of creation infected everything under his dominion. The fruits of the original transgression was passed to all men and that fruit is DEATH. Christ's Death destroyed death. It plundered Hades and bestowed life to those in the tombs. Before the crucifixion and Ressurection of Christ, all were seperated from God. Hence the symbolic tearing of the veil of the temple which seperated the sanctuary from the Holy of Holies at Christ's death. The "iron curtain" seperating God from man was removed.

Infants have no personal sin but they still die, having recieved the consequence which is Death, likewise with the Theotokos. The iniquity is death, it is the enemy of God and He sent His Son to defeat it.

Before the crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ, all were separated from God

Right! So this human condition not only experiences mortality and death but separation from God. Sin is the cause of that.

If an individual (especially who was morally aware) was sinless (apart from faith in the grace and work of Christ) then they would not be separate from God. There would be no grounds for their personal separation. They would not be sinners. They would be just and righteous, holy. And therefore they would have spiritual union and fellowship with God. They would have eternal life already, without need of Christ to provide it. For to know God is eternal life (John 17:3)

That includes Mary -- she was separated from God. By nature all men are separated from God, and thus separated from the nature of God (i.e.holiness). Therefore man is inherently separated from holiness (aka sinlessness). Then of consequence man is sinful.

That's why the virgin birth was necessary in the incarnation.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2007, 03:14:23 AM by Cleopas »

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

Right! So this human condition not only experiences mortality and death but separation from God. Sin is the cause of that.

If an individual (especially who was morally aware) was sinless (apart from faith in the grace and work of Christ) then they would not be separate from God. There would be no grounds for their personal separation. They would not be sinners. They would be just and righteous, holy. And therefore they would have spiritual union and fellowship with God. They would have eternal life already, without need of Christ to provide it. For to know God is eternal life (John 17:3)

That includes Mary -- she was separated from God. BY nature all men are separated form God, and thus separated form the nature of God (i.e.holiness). Therefore man is inherently separated from holiness (aka sinlessness). Then of consequence man is sinful.That's why the virgin birth was necessary in the incarnation.

As I stated with my initial post, I was quoting comments I read here by Orthodox posters. This is a new concept to me, period. As the thread has proceeded I have found some dissent with the notion that Mary was sinless among Orthodox ranks.

Ultimately, the matter is not salvific -- so long as we believe in Christ, who was sinless.

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

Ah yes, i read thru a few of the beginning posts. I see where your getting at. I believe your initial response is to Rom 3.23. Basically for us, we interpret this to be original and/ or personal sin. For instance we do not ascribe personal sins to an infant, but even an infant is still born in inquity. Those iniquities which it inherited, though no fault of its own. This is why the latin dogma of the IC is completely unneccesary for us. There has never been a belief that unbaptized babies went to a place called limbo, while a crack baby may have inherited iniquities, he is not guilty for being born with them, he will not be relegated to some obscure place in the afterlife. For us, Romans 3.23 is explained in Rom 5.12-21.

I thought your tradition held to an 'age of accountability', or am i mistaking it for another group? Anyway we can say Mary was born sinless but that would apply for everyone as well.

As far as the Theotokos, there is no definition as to "when" she became sinless. One can hold to varying opinions; in the russian tradition its popular to say she remained sinless since her birth. In the greek tradition more emphasis is placed at her Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel told her, "the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the highest will overshadow you." Still others like taking the totality of what scriptures and tradition offer us. That she alone is the only human being to attain the Holy Spirit twice, once at the Annunciation (concieving of Jesus) and a second time when she was baptised with fire and the Spirit at the Pentecost. Some of the Fathers did indeed see minor faults with the Virgin, as when she talked back to the Lord at the wedding feast of Cana. St. John Chrysostom was of this opinion. The church worships that she is sinless, not when she became sinless. The church also recognizes that she partook of theosis, like all are asked to do in their struggle. To see that our understanding of her sinlessness is different from an RC understanding and by no means insists on chronology as a neccesary starting point for this. I will quote from the Matinal canon of the Service of the Feast of the Annunciation. The Matinal canon is a hypothetical dialogue between Mary and the Angel Gabriel on the annunciation, here is an excerpt:

Virgin Mary: "The descent of the Holy Spirit has purified my soul and sanctified my body, it has made of me a temple that contains God; a Tabernacle divinely adorned, a living sanctuary, and the pure mother of Life."

Later in the service the above is repeated, "Thou dost appear to me to be speaking the truth answered the Virgin, For thou has come as an angel messenger, bringing joy to all , Since, then, I am purified in soul and body by the Spirit, be it unto me according to thy word, May God dwell in me. Unto Him i cry aloud with thee, O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord". (Annunciation Matins canticles 7,8)

As we can see from the Virgin's response we do not view her in the same light as Christ nor as in the same way as the RC. Some sort of purification took place at the Annunciation when the Holy Spirit came upon her and overshadowed her. We do not speculate what this sanctification and purification is, somthing was blotted out.

As you know in the latin dogma her sinlessness (both original and personal) is specified to have occured at the very moment of her conception. In Orthodoxy no such starting point is revealed. Thus all answers as to the 'when' are actually opinions. Whats missing from these posts i noticed , is there is no reference to her Theosis. Its a lifelong process towards the adavancement of divinization (2Pet 1.4, 2Cor 3.18). This should always be a component of her advancement towards holiness in these discussions.

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

James 1:15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

In each case sin precedes and is the source of death.

I agree with you! The sin of Adam was the first sin and from it precedes death [to all]. I know that is not what you are saying, but perhaps you have never considered this idea? The "wages of sin," is truly death as God warned Adam and Eve. "The day you eat of this tree, you will surely die." They did indeed die, both mortally and spiritually. They lost their likeness to God and the sanctifying grace in their souls and their senses were corrupted. The Image of God in them was wounded, but not destroyed. God could still (and still does) use individuals throughout the OT by grace; however, they lack the sanctifying grace to break the bondage to the Devil in their souls...

Please trust me when I say I understand your position because even though I was a "cradle" Orthodox and when I started to take Orthodoxy seriously (about 2 years ago) I took 95% with out a problem but there are a few which have caused me some greif (prayer to Saints, Heaven and Hell) but these have been reconciled 100% with new understanding sadly the only obstacle to Orthodox belief is about the most Holy Theotokos (Mary) who sadly on my own egotistical self cannot will myself to understand the position fully like titles like panagia (All-Holy) and so forth troubled me but now I understand the actual position now the sinless part is still a bit iffy with me until recently when a poster who I forget the name stated this which changed my mind "sinlessness does not necessarily constitute "automatic Theosis" I'm not sure whether you understand the Orthodox understanding of salvation (But it is radically different to every other denomination only OO and EO accept this) but salvation is attaining theosis and althought hypothetically mary could be sinless or not that's not what I am specifically tackling here but being sinless does not necessarily mean your saved unlike the evangelical view of God wearing "Jesus coloured glasses" allowing us to enter heaven.

I apologise if I am repeating what has already been stated in this thread, but I think that in the light of what has been posted it is not unreasonable to reiterate that the Orthodox Church does indeed teach that Mary is without sin. I believe the confusion lies with the exact definition of that sin. Mary is stated as being free from personal or actual sin, but not as being free of original sin, ie. the consequences of original sin; that being death. I'm sure that one of the more learned of our members can clarify this point much more efficiently than I, but it is my understanding that Christ is the only one who was not at the mercy of that curse. Death could not hold the God/Man. Is this the sense in which Romans 3:23 claims that all have sinned except Christ?

To say that if Mary or anyone else had been perfect, we would not have needed Christ as our Saviour is to perhaps overlook that in Christ, God and Man are reconciled. Only He who had the power over death is able to deliver humanity from its curse.

Below are some quotes from Orthodox sources regarding the sinlessness of Mary.

As All-Holy and Most-Pure, Mary was free from actual sin, but, in the opinion of most Orthodox theologians, although not dogmatized by the Church, she did fall under the curse of Original Sin as does all mankind. For this reason by virtue of her solidarity with all humanity the Theotokos died a bodily death.

Quoted from; "These Truths We Hold - The Holy Orthodox Church: Her Life and Teachings". Compiled and Edited by A Monk of St. Tikhon's Monastery.

The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament.

Quoted from “The Orthodox Church” by Bishop Kallistos Ware.

The pure and immaculate life of the Virgin Mary up to the Annunciation by the Archangel, her freedom from personal sins, was the fruit of the union of her spiritual labor upon herself and the abundance of grace that was poured upon her.

Quoted from Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, by Fr Michael Pomazansky.

God be with us all.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Thank you, Riddikulus. I think that's what a lot of us were trying to say earlier.

It is important that the Theotokos be sinless because she is an example for us to follow. It is possible to live our lives and, though we are subject to death, the corruption which came from Adam's sin, choose not to sin. What hope would there be if, try as we may, we must sin? What sort of sadistic diety would our Lord be if He did not allow each of us to attain perfection?

Cleopas, I understand what you're saying about needing the salvation of Christ, and Orthodox theology there is the idea that everyone needs salvation, regardless of whether they have sinned personally; original sin is enough to warrant that even if we do not personally sin. Yet that idea in no way implies that we have as the West has termed a "sin nature", nor that we must sin in order to receive salvation, nor indeed that those who have not sinned are the equals of Christ. We are rather utterly dependent on Him, as St. Paul said:

Quote from: Acts 17:24-28

The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own [the Athenians'] poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

« Last Edit: December 04, 2007, 11:18:22 PM by ytterbiumanalyst »

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Cleopas, I understand what you're saying about needing the salvation of Christ, and Orthodox theology there is the idea that everyone needs salvation, regardless of whether they have sinned personally; original sin is enough to warrant that even if we do not personally sin. Yet that idea in no way implies that we have as the West has termed a "sin nature", nor that we must sin in order to receive salvation, nor indeed that those who have not sinned are the equals of Christ. We are rather utterly dependent on Him, as St. Paul said:

Why was our Lord given the name Jesus?

Matthew 2:21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Accordingly, if there is no personal committal of sin then a person does not need the Savior. Who all needs the sacrificial work of Christ in order to be saved from their sins?

1 John 2:2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Note the plural, "sins." This refers to individual sins personally committed, not to the sin of Adam alone and the mortality ensuing there from. See also Romans 3:25, & 1 John 4:10.

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

Who's denying that Jesus died for sins? At the same token; however, sins were still forgiven previous to His death...

He did not just die for sins in general, but for our sins. That means we all had personal sin in our lives, not just mortality from Adam. That means Mary had personal sin in her life. If she did not then Christ did not die for her. If he did not die for her than she was not saved or did not need the Savior.

We all need the Savior.

« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 07:12:35 PM by Cleopas »

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

He did not just die for sins in general, but for our sins. That means we all had personal sin in our lives, not just mortality from Adam. That means Mary had personal sin in her life. If she did not then Christ did not die for her. If he did not die for her than she was not saved or did not need the Savior.

This is quite logical, assuming the above is true. But that is your assumption, and if your assumption is not true, then everything which follows is logically untrue as well.

But I ask, if Adam's curse means that all of us sin personally, then Christ must have sinned personally, for he was of Adam's line, or else Mary was immaculately conceived. Yet both of us know that both these options are ludicrous. Therefore, Adam's curse must not mean personal sin for all, but merely death and corruption. And therefore, it is possible to live your life without personal sin.

This is quite logical, assuming the above is true. But that is your assumption, and if your assumption is not true, then everything which follows is logically untrue as well.

It seems to em then, the question is is the Scripture truth? The Scripture says Christ came to save us from our sins, not just Adam's sin/curse/what have you. MY sins are mine. I committed them. Your sins are yours. You committed them. If these passages be truth, the Mary likewise had sin that was hers.

Quote

But I ask, if Adam's curse means that all of us sin personally, then Christ must have sinned personally, for he was of Adam's line, or else Mary was immaculately conceived. Yet both of us know that both these options are ludicrous. Therefore, Adam's curse must not mean personal sin for all, but merely death and corruption. And therefore, it is possible to live your life without personal sin.

Except, Christ was not born of Adam. He was born of woman, thus mortal. But not of Adam, and thus not sinful.

Quote

We are both quite in agreement here.

And that is the main thing. If nothing else, we know we need the Savior. I am glad to be one of His.

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

It seems to em then, the question is is the Scripture truth? The Scripture says Christ came to save us from our sins, not just Adam's sin/curse/what have you. MY sins are mine. I committed them. Your sins are yours. You committed them. If these passages be truth, the Mary likewise had sin that was hers.

Except, Christ was not born of Adam. He was born of woman, thus mortal. But not of Adam, and thus not sinful.

God bless !

Scripture is true, but it depends on the interpretation. The verses from Scripture don't say that the Theotokos ever sinned. Everyone has different sins, some people have many sins, some only a few,.....and the Mother of God has not even one sin- you interprete the scripture with your own opinion !

So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.

And as far as the second goes, it is actually the second half of a sentence; I'll post the entire sentence here.

Quote from: I John 2:1-2 (emphasis mine)

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin; and if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Even St. John himself admits that it is possible not to sin, in the first half of the sentence you tried to use to prove the opposite.

It seems to em then, the question is is the Scripture truth? The Scripture says Christ came to save us from our sins, not just Adam's sin/curse/what have you. MY sins are mine. I committed them. Your sins are yours. You committed them. If these passages be truth, the Mary likewise had sin that was hers.

No, the Scripture is not truth, though things contained in Scripture are true. Jesus Christ is Truth, as he said himself:

Quote from: John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Scripture is true, but it depends on the interpretation. The verses from Scripture don't say that the Theotokos ever sinned. Everyone has different sins, some people have many sins, some only a few,.....and the Mother of God has not even one sin- you interprete the scripture with your own opinion !

In CHRIST

Did Mary need the Savior?

Why, according to the Apostles of Christ, Matthew and John, did Christ come under the name Jesus?

2+2=4

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

(emphasis mine)Scripture is true, but it depends on the interpretation. The verses from Scripture don't say that the Theotokos ever sinned. Everyone has different sins, some people have many sins, some only a few,.....and the Mother of God has not even one sin- you interprete the scripture with your own opinion !

The Apostles merely said that Christ came to forgive sins. According to you, because he did, therefore everyone must have sinned. Your opinion, not the Apostles'.

« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 09:09:08 PM by ytterbiumanalyst »

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Matthew 1:21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Save his people from their SINS- hmm - where can you read here, how many people have sinned and how many sins they commited - it only says that Christ saved his people from their sins (general)- it does not matter how much they sinned or how bad the sins may be. It only says that the COMMITED sins will be forgiven and that they will be saved through Christ.

But the Mother of God also needed Salvation:

My soul does magnify the Lord..........God my Saviour. ( but this also does not mean that she sinned)

Please pardon me. I meant to reference Matthew 1:21. I quoted the text correctly, just not the address.

Quote

And as far as the second goes, it is actually the second half of a sentence; I'll post the entire sentence here.Even St. John himself admits that it is possible not to sin, in the first half of the sentence you tried to use to prove the opposite.

Indeed it does, but only AFTER one has come to place faith in Christ. The assurance for the adequacy of Christ's sacrificial work is given then to bolster faith should we (believer's) yield to sin, to repent and receive forgiveness. nevertheless, the writer makes a very profund statement about the nature of Christ's sacrifice -- it is universal in scope. It (potentially) applies to the whole world, specifically their sins. That is to say everyone born of Adam has their own sin and needs the sacrificial work of Christ to expiate for them before God. Both believers (including Mary), and the whole world. We all had personal sin of some kind according to Apostle John.

Quote

No, the Scripture is not truth, though things contained in Scripture are true. Jesus Christ is Truth, as he said himself:There's the mental gymnast. 7.8!

But Scripture itself says otherwise. Jesus said the word (littel "w") of God is truth (John 17:17). He prayed that the Father would keep all of His followers in that truth because He (the Word, capital "W") would be leaving the world. Paul confirms this when he says that the church is being made ready to present to Christ by the washing of the water by the word (Ephesians 5:26). See also Psalms 119:151.

Quote

That Christ is sinless has nothing to do with the circumstances of his birth. It has everything to do with the fact that He is God, and that God does not sin. Full stop.

Indeed. But he was God without humanity. In assuming humanity he assumed mortality, yet not sin, precisely because he was not born of Adam. He was made sin, who knew no sin, and came in the likeness of sinful flesh, but not in sinful flesh. Like all men, human in nature, unlike all sons of Adam, not sinful in nature.

Quote

Ah, but without peripheral stuff like this, where would this forum be?

Logged

CleopasChristopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley

I'm not sure what Matthew 2:21 has to do with this question. Perhaps you have quoted the wrong verse?

With regard to 1John2:2:

1John2;1 reads,

My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

John is writing to Christians, warning them against Gnostic teachings on sin. This passage has nothing to do with saying that every human being does or must sin.

Going back to chapter one of the epistle we find that the Gnostic teachings on sin were 1: union with God is indifferent to sin (verses 6 and 7); 2: sin does not exist (verses 8 and 9) and 3: one in union with God cannot sin. (1:10 to 2:2)

John corrects these positions by saying: 1: Faith must be seen in works (verse 6). To have a correct relationship with God includes living a holy and righteous life. And faith must seek forgiveness and cleansing from sin (verse 7). 2: Sin does exist and the practice of confession is the established basis for growth toward righteousness (verse 9). 3: Though we do sin, we should endeavour not to sin. Salvation in Christ is a process of growth into sinlessness (verse 7).

God be with you.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

In assuming humanity he assumed mortality, yet not sin, precisely because he was not born of Adam. He was made sin, who knew no sin, and came in the likeness of sinful flesh, but not in sinful flesh. Like all men, human in nature, unlike all sons of Adam, not sinful in nature.

Here we disagree. Humans are not, have never been, and never will be sinful in nature. God does not force people to sin. Having a sinful nature would mean we must sin from the moment we are created, and thus would negate free will. Sinful nature is Calvinism, not Christianity.

« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 09:30:32 PM by ytterbiumanalyst »

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Okay, don't shoot the messenger here. I personally am still thinking and praying over this issue, considering the posts I've seen. But in discussing it with my husband, he sent me this excerpt from the GREAT SYNAXARION OF THE CHURCH (for those who don't know what that is, that would be the book that is read from in the church that officially tells who or what feast is commemorated that day, and gives the information about them as held canonical by the entire church, not one saint or another, not one priest or bishop, but the entire church) on the feastday of the conception of the Theotokos:

The Conception by St. Anna of the Most Holy Theotokos

In accordance with the eternal purpose of God, who willed to prepare a most pure habitation for Himself in order to take flesh and dwell among men, Joachim and Anna were prevented from having Children for many years. Their barren old age was symbolic of human nature itself, bowed down and dried up under the weight of sin and death, yet they never ceased begging God to take away their reproach. Now when the time of preparation determined by the Lord had been fulfilled, God sent an Angel to Joachim in solitude on a mountain, and to Anna in her affliction weeping in her garden, to tell them that the ancient prophecies were soon to be fulfilled in them: a child would be born to them, who was destined to become the veritable Ark of the new Covenant, the divine Ladder, the unburnt Bush, the uncut Mountain, the living Temple where the Word of God would take up his abode. Through the conception of Saint Anna, the barrenness of human nature itself, separated from God by death, has on this day been brought to an end; and by the wondrous birth-giving of her who had remained childless until the age when women can no longer bear fruit, God announced and testified to the more astonishing miracle of the Conception without seed, and of the immaculate coming to birth of Christ within the heart and the womb of the Most Holy Theotokos.Even though the birth of the Theotokos took place through a miraculous action of God, she was conceived by the union of man and woman in accordance with the laws of our human nature, which has fallen through Adam’s transgression and become subject to sin and corruption. As the chosen Vessel and precious Shrine prepared by God since the beginning of time, she is indeed the most pure and most perfect of mankind, but even so, she has not been set apart from our common inheritance nor from the consequences of the sin of our first parents. Just as it was fitting that Christ, in order to deliver us from death by his own voluntary death, should by his Incarnation be made like to men in all things except sin; so it was meet that His Mother, in whose womb the Word of God would unite with human nature, should be subject to death and corruption like every child of Adam, lest we be not fully included in Salvation and Redemption. The Theotokos has been chosen and preferred among all women, not arbitrarily, but because God foresaw that she would preserve her purity and keep it perfect: conceived and born like all of us, she has been worthy to become the Mother of the Son of God and the Mother of us all. So, in her tenderness and compassion, she is able to intercede for us with her Son, that He may have mercy upon us. Just as the Lord Jesus Christ was the fruit of the virginity of the Theotokos, so she herself was the fruit of the Chastity of Joachim and Anna. And by following the same path of Chastity we too, monks and Christian married people, can bring Christ to be born and to grow in us.----THE GREAT SYNAXARION OF THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH ON THE OCCASION OF THE FEASTDAY OF THE CONCEPTION OF THE MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS

According to you. Where in the Tradition of the Church is this taught?This is quite logical, assuming the above is true. But that is your assumption, and if your assumption is not true, then everything which follows is logically untrue as well.

But I ask, if Adam's curse means that all of us sin personally, then Christ must have sinned personally, for he was of Adam's line, or else Mary was immaculately conceived. Yet both of us know that both these options are ludicrous. Therefore, Adam's curse must not mean personal sin for all, but merely death and corruption. And therefore, it is possible to live your life without personal sin.We are both quite in agreement here.

I think I recall hearing this from someone whose name begins with a 'P' I think the difference here is that you can't live without Original Sin...?

That Christ is sinless has nothing to do with the circumstances of his birth. It has everything to do with the fact that He is God, and that God does not sin. Full stop.

Grace and Peace,

If we look at St. Ambrose' Anthropology we might question this assumption...

St. Ambrose ponders the 'Virgin' Birth and concluded that it might have had a role in the sinlessness of the humanity of Christ. I don't have the particular works in front of me but I'm sure I've read it before.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

I never said it wasn't, only that we are not sinful by nature. We are sinful when we choose to sin, and not until. Certainly we are corrupt; it is quite obvious that we are subject to death. But God does not give us a sinful nature, thereby forcing us to be sinners. When we sin, it is our choice, our free will to do so.

Contrast this with Calvinism, which claims that the elect are chosen by God to inherit life and the rest of humanity is condemned to hell--regardless of individual choices of individual people.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens